Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellants.

Also heard Mr. S. Talapatra, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The judgment and order dated 6.3.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No. 151 of 1995 is the subject matter under challenge in this writ appeal.

3. The writ petitioner, respondent of this appeal, had questioned the validity of the impugned Government office order/letter dated 22.7.1989 (Annexure-5 to the Civil Rule No. 151 /95) re-designating the post of Superintendent of Store as Storekeeper with present, modified and revised pay scale attached with the said post in the following order i.e. Rs. 600-1400 (present scale) then modified present scale of Rs. 650-1595 and Rs. 1450-3710 (Revised scale) and also, made a claim for his right to continue in the post of Superintendent of Store with his pay scale of Rs. 750-1750 with effect from the date of introduction of Revision of Pay Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ROP Rules. 1982') and also the pay scale of Rs. 2000-4410 with effect from the date of introduction of Revision of Pay Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ROP Rules, 1988') by contending, inter alia, that the writ petitioner is a diploma holder in mechanical engineering who initially joined in the post of Supervisor Grade-I under the National Projects Construction Corporation (NPCC) at Jatanbari and thereafter he was appointed to the post pf Superintendent of Stores in the Polytechnic Institute (Education department), Agartala with effect from 14.3.1973, in terms of the related service rules/recruitment rules as seen in the document marked as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. According to the writ petitioner, the pay scale of the post of Superintendent of Stores and the pay scale of the post of Overseer of other departments have been raised to Rs. 600-1440 as the said two posts are of equivalent nature from the very beginning. But by virtue of the impugned office order dated 22.7.1989, the post of Superintendent of Stores, was re-designated as Store-keeper with a revised pay scale of Rs. 1450-3710 and being aggrieved by this action of the official respondents the writ petitioner submitted representation to the appropriate authority against the re-designation of the post of Superintendent of Stores and the pay scale given against the said post and even the Case of the petitioner was considered by the Principal, Polytechnic Institute who forwarded the case of the petitioner in the prescribed form to the Pay Anamoly Committee of the Government of Triprua with a recommendation for time scale of pay of Rs. 2000-4410. But the Pay Anamoly Committee did not consider the case of the petitioner despite the submissions of a number of representations in that regard. The petitioner also compared the nature of duties of the Superintendent of Stores with that of Superintendent of Stores working under the Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Triprua and also contended that the duties and functions discharged by the Superintendent of Stores under the Health & Family Welfare Department are quite same and similar with the duties and functions of the Storekeeper like the present writ petitioner. But the Superintendents of Stores under the Health & Family Welfare department have been given the time scale of pay of Rs. 2000-4410, but such benefit of time scale of pay is not given to the writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge of this Court examined the case of the petitioner under Civil Rule No. 151 of 95 and finally disposed of the same under impugned judgment and order dated 6.3.1997 with a direction to absorb the petitioner to the post of Superintendent of Stores for which he was initially appointed and he should also be given the pay scale of Rs. 2000-4410 with effect from the date of introduction of the ROP, 1988 within a period of four weeks. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, the State of Tripura filed this writ appeal.

4. Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Superintendent of Stores of the Health & Family Welfare department is governed by the separate recruitment rules and likewise, there is a different recruitment rules for the post of Superintendent of Stores of Polytechnic Institute and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim as of right the benefit of time scale of pay attached with the post of Superintendent of Stores of the Health department as the matter pertaining to the pay anamoly or such claim is to be decided by the expert body or the official respondents concerned and as such the Writ Court cannot issue a direction to the official respondents for affording the equal pay of Superintendent of -Stores of Health department to the present petitioner. It is also submitted by Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Single Judge did not compare whether the works performed by the writ petitioner as Superintendent of Stores are similar and Identical to the works performed by the Superintendent of Stores of the Health department and the nature, and whether, the nature and duties of the two posts are same and similar. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that duties and functions of the Superintendent of Stores held by the present writ petitioner are quite different from the duties and functions of the Superintendent of Stores in the Health & Family Welfare department and as such the learned Single Judge erred in law in directing the official respondents for affording time scale of pay of Rs. 2000-4410 to the writ petitioner with effect from the date of introduction of the ROP Rules, 1988 which amounts to a substitution of a new decision to the decision of an Expert Body like Pay Anamoly Committee.